Flows of knowledge

1. Just because something is not proven through science does not make it less valuable fodder for our thinking processes

2. Just because something is proven through science does not mean that it will not be regarded as less valuable or even pseudo science tomorrow

After the middle ages [dark ages] through renaissance and modern era much has changed in the scientific method. This means that there should be less of a chance of viewing old science as pseudo science but rather just less ‘progressive’. Trouble is that the methods change also, not just the layers of knowledge we build upon. This leads to potential dismissal of earlier scientific findings.

What then is the moral of this story? We do need to think things through and not just take them as given. Some proof is always needed, at times though it has a lot to do with experiential and intuitive proof rather than scientific research. Often research starts when there is enough experiential noise to be noticed. Keep an open mind my friend 😉

At times we have cycles: alchemy good, alchemy bad to alchemy in fact is what we do a lot, just not with turning everything into gold.

I am fascinated by the number of examples in philosophy where – through thinking things through without the help of a microscope or neuroscience – philosophers have been able to discuss humanity’s essence.